A view of mathematics teaching in South Africa after 1994

Briefly considering the history of curriculum change in South Africa after 1994, one notes that Curriculum 2005 (C2005) was implemented in January 1998 with an intention of promoting learner-centred classrooms; however, it failed (Mahomed, 2004:2). C2005 was informed by the principles of outcomes-based education (OBE), as the foundation of the post- apartheid schools’ curriculum (Chisholm, 2005:193). According to Jansen (1998:322), outcomes would dislocate an emphasis on content coverage, make it clear what learners should attend to and direct classroom assessment towards specified goals. However, Jansen (1998:322) is of the opinion that outcomes in fact cannot deliver what they claim. According to him, outcomes have no historical legacy because they are rooted in behavioural psychology and are derived from the competency education models associated with vocational education in the United Kingdom (Jansen, 1998:322).

However, the DBE (2009:15) states that C2005 would in essence shift teaching from a behaviourist approach, based on the idea of the teacher as transmitter of knowledge, to a constructivist learner-centred approach in terms of which the teacher becomes a facilitator of knowledge. Obviously, learners’ interaction and learning experiences would depend on

22

guidance from teachers, and teachers’ key role would be to lead learners in their own discovery and understanding of mathematical concepts (Driver & Oldham, 1986:112). In particular, C2005 would offer a dialogue between learners and the curriculum where the learners interact with sources of knowledge, reconstruct knowledge and take responsibility for their own learning outcomes (Malan, 2000:26). Constructivist theory acknowledges that the teacher is not a transmitter of knowledge, but rather a facilitator and provider of experiences from which learners will learn.

Three years later, in 2000, C2005 (up to Grade 9) was reviewed and revised and the Revised National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) was named and subsequently became official policy in April 2002 (Chisholm, 2005:193). However, C2005 and the revised version RNCS were met with several challenges and were replaced by National Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) with its full implementation in January 2014 up to Grade 12 (DBE, 2011:3). According to Mahomed (2004:2), these challenges included the following, among others:

 Teaching, learning and assessment: Some teachers found it difficult not to integrate teaching, learning and assessment, which was the primary requirement of C2005. Many teachers could not align assessment methods, tools and forms to learning activities and learning outcomes.

 Learner performance: Some teachers believed that learners’ abilities to read, write and listen have deteriorated due to C2005.

 Not greater support from the district officials: Many teachers expressed a need for greater support from the district given the demands made on them by the new curriculum.

 Inadequate resources: About half of the textbooks at schools provided insufficient guidance for teachers. In addition, the majority of the teachers complained of comfortable classroom sizes for a number of learners.

 Teacher development: Several teachers expressed a need for more practical training that is relevant to their environmental contexts. Teachers expressed a need for training in anti-bias issues, management of diversity, accommodating learners with special educational needs, co-operative learning, lesson planning and integration across learning areas.

23

Moreover, Jansen (1998:323) claims that, among other reasons, C2005 had a negative impact in South African schools because it was driven by political imperatives that had little to do with the realities of classroom life; the language used was too complex, confusing and at times contradictory; and it was based on flawed assumptions about what happens in the classrooms, how classrooms are organised and what kinds of teachers exist within the system. Furthermore, Jansen (1998:323) states that the curriculum multiplied the administrative burdens placed on teachers. However, this is contradicted by Malan (2000:28), who states that C2005 forced “uncoordinated and laissez-faire educational planning, managing and teaching practices into the background and introduced strategic educational planning that was aimed at achieving results”. In essence, Malan (2000:22) notes that, as elsewhere in the world, reactions vary between curriculum commendation by its proponents and denouncement by its critics.

Kilpatrick, Swafford and Findell (2001:371) are of the opinion that the successful implementation of a mathematics curriculum is directly influenced by the proficient teaching practice of the teachers implementing the curriculum. This means that the teacher’s role is pivotal in the implementation of the curriculum. It is up to the teacher to determine how to make appropriate adaptations to accommodate the curriculum in teaching and learning within the social organisation of the individual class. However, according to Brodie, Lelliott and Davis (2001:541), teachers can create a mismatch or gap between the curriculum demands and what actually happens in the classroom. For example, in South Africa, learner-centred teaching is promoted by the new national curriculum, but instead, as in international studies, research in South Africa on the new curriculum is beginning to show that here too, teacher- centred practices are difficult to shift (Brodie et al., 2001:542).

In South Africa, many learners still do not participate fully in the learning process, as some teachers are still providing a great deal of direct instruction and are still preoccupied with content coverage (Brodie et al., 2001:542). Research conducted in South Africa found that while in general teachers are enthusiastic about the new curriculum and intend to implement learner-centred practices in their classrooms, they continue to teach in predominantly teacher- centred ways (Brodie et al., 2001:542). Obviously, where learner-centred ideas are endorsed, they do not enable learners’ commitment with key concepts in the subject area.

24